Why the US needs to blacklist, censor pirate websites

Daniel Castro's ideas for addressing Internet piracy have made their way into …

Piracy runs rampant on the Internet, but Daniel Castro says it doesn't have to be this way. He wants the US government to start creating a blacklist of Internet sites; once approved by a judge, each site would be cut off from American Internet users at the Domain Name System (DNS) level, where readable locations like "arstechnica.com" are turned into numerical IP addresses. US-based credit card companies would be forbidden from doing any business with the site, and US-based advertising networks couldn't serve ads to the site.

He testified this month before Congress about the need for such measures, and I spoke to him recently about Web blocking, censorship, and why he believes that deep packet inspection (DPI) of Internet traffic by ISPs is more like Gmail than wiretapping. As for due process, Castro says COICA is fair—but he's open to some tweaks.

Crime fighting, Internet-style

Ars: I'm sure we can both agree that there's plenty of piratical behavior on the Internet, but the key question is how we deal with that reality. In your view, why is something like COICA the right way forward?

Castro: If you accept the fact that piracy is a problem, government needs to do something. You have to start from that premise. So if you accept that premise, the question is what's the most effective way of reducing infringement?

The problem we have right now is that there's different types of actors: domestic [pirate] sites, foreign sites, domestic consumers, foreign consumers. You have different strategies for dealing with each of these groups. For domestic sites, you can do things like taking down sites very easily. For foreign sites, you can't do that. The question is, are there other options? Of course there are. You can block sites, for example, at the DNS level. Or you can get everyone who's involved in the Internet, the different intermediaries, to come together and find ways to combat piracy, and that's what COICA is about.

Ars: There has been a host of criticisms about the way COICA might be implemented. One of them I've heard repeatedly is that the utility of DNS censorship is going to be fairly low, given that people can still access the sites in question by IP address or by switching DNS providers. Is this just about making piracy a little bit harder?

Castro: Nobody, including myself, makes the claim that DNS blocking will be 100 percent effective. It might not even be 90 percent effective. But the question is, is it effective enough that it's worth the cost of doing it? I think the consensus from the people that can do it is that yes, it is. There's a very low cost if you have a single list of sites that are engaged in piracy. Once you have this list, there's a variety of steps you can take to make accessing these sites more difficult.

It's crime-fighting. You never stop all crime; the point is, can you reduce it to a tolerable level. Right now, we're not really doing all that much to combat piracy and counterfeiting, and there is a lot more that we can do. As long as the steps are reasonable, we should take them.

Ars: In attempting to seize a recent child porn domain name, ICE accidentally took down an extra 80,000 sites and redirected them to a banner claiming that they had been busted as part of a child porn investigation. Do you have concerns about this DNS-based approach to site blocking, especially since COICA's site blocking hearings could be largely non-adversarial?

Castro: Well, that gets to the issue of process, and certainly the process failed with that ICE takedown. That means it should be corrected; I absolutely agree with that. One of the proposals at the hearing where I testified was that the government might give advance notice at times. You can certainly envision a 72-hour notice period where you let the site know that it has infringing content, we are intending to take it down, and you have 72 hours to respond. That's one possibility. We don't do that in the real world with counterfeiting; we go in and seize counterfeit goods when we see them. If a crime is happening, the police can stop it immediately, and there's a limited amount of time in which they can do so without going to a judge. You can stop a crime in progress, and that's the same question we have on the Internet now.

Ars: I was speaking with Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) about this several weeks ago, and she was very sharp on the “due process” issue. She argued that what was going on with ICE takedowns right now were a travesty of justice and probably illegal, in part because of the seize-first-ask-questions-later approach. But it sounds like you're more open to notification and a chance to respond before some of this blacklisting takes effect.

Castro: Sure. I think there's a couple things to keep in mind. You might want to act so swiftly on some sites that you don't notify them. For example, a site like WatchSeason5Episode2ofDexter.tv, which appears right after the show airs. A reasonable process would say that someone in law enforcement can look at the site, talk to the content owner, and agree that it is an infringing site. Maybe they can take that one down in real-time.

Something else that may be a little more ambiguous might have a 72-hour notice, where the site could come back and possibly provide evidence that what happened was incorrect. Remember, of all the sites that ICE has taken down so far, no one has come back and said, "I really wasn't an infringing site," with that one exception.

Ars: Sure, but isn't that a bit like saying, "We took down all of these allegedly infringing sites and none of the foreign operators behind them hired an expensive US lawyer to get their domain name back, so they must agree with what we did"?

Daniel Castro

Castro: If my site was taken down illegally by the federal government, I would complain very loudly. And we haven't heard that from the ones who were taken down. I think they know they were engaging in illegal activity, and some people have said they've stopped.

Ars: You draw a distinction between different kinds of sites. But what we've seen from ICE so far has involved many sites which were clearly infringing, but also sites where it wasn't so clear—sites that engage only in linking, for instance, or those that link to illegal content but also to legal material. So it's interesting to hear you call for something better than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Castro: The purpose of COICA is to go after sites that are dedicated to infringing, where there is a significant portion of the content which is infringing. It's not to say that you can avoid penalties by posting entire seasons of HBO shows alongside a few public domain photos. I think that's ridiculous. Of course you can take down the whole site. There are distinctions that can be made. But at the same time, nobody's talking about taking down someone's personal website because they happen to use a copyrighted photo.

Ars: One of the things Lofgren warned about was that if you go down this road, government agencies like ICE could one day choose to shut down Google. Your reaction?

Castro: I don't think anyone seriously thinks that ICE is going to shut down Google. Sites that play by the rules are in no danger of being taken down because that's the whole point: they're part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Ars: Many of these issues are international. For instance, one of the domains taken down in a recent seizure was the Spanish rojadirectas.com, which was declared legal by Spanish courts. Countries obviously have the right to prevent behavior at home that is legal abroad, but it does seem like this gets a bit more complicated when you're trying to do things like COICA is: preventing multinational payment processors and ad networks from working with companies that are legal in their own jurisdictions. Any concerns about extending US law too far when it comes to shaping the Internet?

Castro: I don't think there's a problem with asking companies in the United States to protect other companies and IP rights holders in the United States. They are based here, they should follow US laws. The fact that a country doesn't protect intellectual property is no excuse to just give them free reign to do whatever they want.

Ars: Should private companies be able to go to court under COICA to obtain website blocks, or should that be reserved for government?

Castro: I don't think there needs to be a private right of action, but there needs to be an easy way for rightsholders to report that their content is being infringed upon and have a process so that enforcement action can be taken. If it appears the government alone is unable to provide a significant level of enforcement, then I think a private right is something that should be considered.

Ars: In your 2009 paper, you talked about getting even more Internet intermediaries involved in antipiracy work, even saying that ISPs should install deep packet inspection (DPI) gear to monitor traffic flowing through their network for possible copyright violations. Would you still like to see ISPs get more involved?

Castro: Yes. ISPs certainly have a role in reducing infringement. One recent study found that more than 25 percent of content on the Internet is infringing content. This has a big impact on ISPs and on all users who are not downloading that material. That's why I think it's important to allow ISPs to engage with their customers who are downloading illegal content in different ways; one of those ways would be deep packet inspection.

That is not wiretapping. Wiretapping is when someone is reading your communications, reading your e-mails. Deep packet inspection can be an automated process, it can do content matching and identification, and it can provide a simple warning to a user. Or it could be used in "three strikes" legislation, like they have in a few European countries—where you receive notice and if it keeps happening, you receive some kind of penalty. If it continues, you might have your Internet connection terminated.

But there are other options as well. Content holders could advertise to these people. If you are downloading a certain band's music, that band could contact you to say, “Hey, we're going to be in your town next month, what if you buy these tickets?”

Ars: This talk about getting intermediaries more involved in stopping infringement sounds like a move away from the traditional “safe harbor” approach we have used for communications networks. How would this sort of approach differ from, say, asking a phone company to listen in on calls to prevent illegal activity, or to block a list of government provided numbers to alleged foreign mobsters?

Castro: If you call known foreign terrorists, your line is probably going to be tapped. But I don't think there's actually a parallel there. I don't think those are the same thing. Deep packet inspection is one option. And the key is that this is automated technology. When Gmail provides contextual ads by scanning your e-mail, there is not a privacy violation because there's no person on the other side who's reading your e-mail.

Fireworks and missiles ahead

COICA promises to be one of the crucial pieces of tech-related legislation that Congress will consider this year, and it promises to involve serious fireworks. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has already promised that COICA will pass this year, but he's up against Senators like Ron Wyden (D-OR), who said last year that COICA was "like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb when what you really need is a precision-guided missile." Wyden has promised to "take the necessary steps to stop [COICA] from passing the United States Senate."

To catch up on our complete COICA interview series, check out our conversations with Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), who supports COICA with a few changes, and with Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), a fierce opponent of everything that COICA represents.

324 Reader Comments

As we've seen from the passing and implementation of these and other ridiculously counterproductive laws, writing without the requisite payola is pointless.

But whining about them on ars isn't? OK . . .

Countering the spread of your FUD isn't 'whining', and neither is pointing out that your antiquated POV is in the extreme minority on the intertubes, where these so-called 'piracy offenses' occur. But I'm sure your Fox News playbook aka "the Shills Employee Manual" instructs you to mis-characterize any clearly superior logic and/or presented facts as representing the tactics you yourself employ as a distraction from your obvious spin. Sorry it didn't work here, maybe you need some more training.

fgoodwin wrote:

Quote:

I've been a citizen even longer than I've been on the net, and the one immutable fact I learned long ago is that there is no "victory" over corporations, their representatives, or the government who defends them. They will do what they darn well please regardless of what the law or anybody else says.

Yeah all that corporate money did wonders at stopping a Republican Administration from creating the EPA and passing all those corporate-friendly laws!

You mean all those laws that lined their pockets, and continues to do so? Fail.

fgoodwin wrote:

Quote:

I don't find it funny at all that you think your labels of 'thieves' and 'other crooks' (definitions within this thread which are highly debatable) supersedes the undebatable definition of citizens and their inalienable rights.

There is no "right to piracy" inalienable or otherwise.

How does this relate in any[/ii] way whatsoever to what I said? Do you even read the thread or are these canned responses? Attempted spin. Epic fail, son. You keep trying to change the discussion from being about the government intruding on [i]all citizens privacy and further limiting all citizens freedoms into a philosophical debate about intellectual property rights vs. piracy. We've covered that before, ad-nauseum, and to the huge discredit of your stance. I would think you were a masochist if I was not convinced you are a shill.

fgoodwin wrote:

Quote:

No, the correct analogy is actually that air polluters (i.e. corporations and their lobbyists) are the only ones who do have a say in laws regarding air quality. In this country, anyway.

Like I said, all that corporate money did wonders at preventing the establishment of the EPA.

LOL/Wut?!? If you think corp$$$ has no effect on the EPA's laws, then you're delusional...oh yeah, sorry, forgot who I was responding to.

ruddy wrote:

The problem with your weasel logik is that besides homosexuals themselves, many others see no harm in homosexuality. Which is not true of piracy.

Let me see if I have this right: you're saying that it is not true that many others see no harm in piracy (as you define it)? Are you even reading this thread at all? Hi ruddy! Welcome to the internet. You might want to get started by acquainting yourself with lemonparty.

Just once I'd like to read a well reasoned argument that would show just how a perpetual copyright with massive government enforcement will be a tangible material benefit to individuals and society. Not even Jack Valenti could pull that one out of his ass, and that man shit gold. I, on the other hand, can bring up a dozen well reasoned arguments against it, but they are always rebuked with "you are a piracy advocate, therefore a thief, therefore immoral, therefore you have no voice on the matter". Like just now. Instead of showing how piracy is a problem, like I, an accused "piracy advocate", have done, you just typed some more baseless accusations.

Hyperbole really doesn't suit you. I don't recall any copyright advocate pushing for "perpetual copyright" but it sure makes a nice strawman. How about just one well reasoned argument about how not wanting the pay the asking price, or not wanting to wait for the release date, or not wanting to obey DRM give a pirate the "moral imperative" to pirate?

You're the guy who invented the right to pirate for this thread, in reply to a person claiming that this proposal is a freedom of speech issue. Reading back through this thread, nobody other than you and Plisskin have mentioned a right to piracy. Calling out people for using hyperbole when you're doing so yourself is, as so much of the rest of your posting, counterproductive.

Maybe your big words and moral righteousness will convince all these dirty, parasitic, advocates of the right to pirate of the error of their ways.

You're the guy who invented the right to pirate for this thread, in reply to a person claiming that this proposal is a freedom of speech issue. Reading back through this thread, nobody other than you and Plisskin have mentioned a right to piracy. Calling out people for using hyperbole when you're doing so yourself is, as so much of the rest of your posting, counterproductive.

Maybe your big words and moral righteousness will convince all these dirty, parasitic, advocates of the right to pirate of the error of their ways.

So you agree then that there is no "right" to piracy? We're making progress. And I believe I said earlier in this thread that pirates will continue to pirate regardless of what I or anybody else says, so no, my purpose isn't to convert anyone, especially those whose mind is already made up.

You're the guy who invented the right to pirate for this thread, in reply to a person claiming that this proposal is a freedom of speech issue. Reading back through this thread, nobody other than you and Plisskin have mentioned a right to piracy. Calling out people for using hyperbole when you're doing so yourself is, as so much of the rest of your posting, counterproductive.Maybe your big words and moral righteousness will convince all these dirty, parasitic, advocates of the right to pirate of the error of their ways.

So you agree then that there is no "right" to piracy? We're making progress. And I believe I said earlier in this thread that pirates will continue to pirate regardless of what I or anybody else says, so no, my purpose isn't to convert anyone, especially those whose mind is already made up.

If most (as in a large majority) people are Good law-abiding citizens who purchase the content they consume, individual copyright infringement on the Internet is not a problem economically. This large majority of honest citizens is necessarily enough to provide for a thriving industry of intellectuals goods. Therefore, piracy does not threaten the industry or future production of intellectual and creative goods.

Non-sequitur, but you're welcome to give it another try. The fact that most people are law-abiding means most people don't pirate.

"The fact that most people are law-abiding means most people don't speed."

What was that about non-sequiturs?

Quote:

That says nothing about how much content they buy (you do know, don't you, that it is possible to buy no content and still not pirate, i.e., to do without, right?). And it says nothing about how much content is illegally pirated by those who do.

"What was that about non-sequiturs?"because if you pedantically examine a phrase out of context, you can claim that it is a non sequitur? is it so difficult to believe that if one speeds, they cannot be law abiding in general? were the laws being discussed traffic laws?

"You even figured out *why* it was a non-sequitur all on your own"only if you pedantically examine a phrase out of context. is it possible that one can be, in general, law abiding but still have sped? yep, unless one pedantically claims that in order to be law abiding, one must have always abided by every law. are there laws that were of particular relevance to the discussion? yep. were those traffic laws? nope, they were copyright laws. would it be reasonable to assume that the phrase "law abiding" was more likely to refer to copyright laws than traffic laws? yep.

You're the guy who invented the right to pirate for this thread, in reply to a person claiming that this proposal is a freedom of speech issue. Reading back through this thread, nobody other than you and Plisskin have mentioned a right to piracy. Calling out people for using hyperbole when you're doing so yourself is, as so much of the rest of your posting, counterproductive.Maybe your big words and moral righteousness will convince all these dirty, parasitic, advocates of the right to pirate of the error of their ways.

So you agree then that there is no "right" to piracy? We're making progress. And I believe I said earlier in this thread that pirates will continue to pirate regardless of what I or anybody else says, so no, my purpose isn't to convert anyone, especially those whose mind is already made up.

Note that he also thinks that my mind is made up, even though he's got no idea what it is that I believe. I know he doesn't have any idea what it is that I believe because he thinks that getting me to agree that there is no right to pirate (which is a 'right' he made up for this thread) is progress. Agreeing or disagreeing with irrelevant fantasies isn't progress, which is why fgoodwin joined t_for and ruddy in my ignore folder.

And as an aside, is it just me or do these guys remind anyone else of high-school policy debate types?

"You even figured out *why* it was a non-sequitur all on your own"only if you pedantically examine a phrase out of context.

I see I gave you too much credit.

Quote:

is it possible that one can be, in general, law abiding but still have sped? yep, unless one pedantically claims that in order to be law abiding, one must have always abided by every law.

"is it possible that one can be, in general, law abiding but still have pirated? yep, unless one pedantically claims that in order to be law abiding, one must have always abided by every law."

So... you do understand... sort of. You're mouthing the words, but not actually firing the synapses required to make the connection.

Quote:

are there laws that were of particular relevance to the discussion? yep. were those traffic laws? nope, they were copyright laws. would it be reasonable to assume that the phrase "law abiding" was more likely to refer to copyright laws than traffic laws? yep.

That would make it tautological and therefore "pedantic", rather like you just got done noting.

"Note that he also thinks that my mind is made up, even though he's got no idea what it is that I believe"apparently this is a right you reserve for yourself. it's amazing the number of times that you've claimed to know he mind of another, when it's obvious that you haven't the slightest clue.

"I know he doesn't have any idea what it is that I believe because he thinks that getting me to agree that there is no right to pirate (which is a 'right' he made up for this thread) is progress"how so? it seems that one who claims to be interested in reasonable discussion, would understand that in reasonable discussion agreeing on basic truths can be an important foundation. additionally, are you claiming that no one has suggested that one has the right copy or distribute regardless of what the law says?

"Agreeing or disagreeing with irrelevant fantasies isn't progress..."it's a fantasy that one does not have the right to pirate? it is irrelevant whether one has such a right? building a foundation of common agreements wouldn't be progress toward reasonable discussion?

"...which is why fgoodwin joined t_for and ruddy in my ignore folder"it seems that you use your ignore folder for expedience. it is more expedient to "ignore" those who continue to support their position after you've declared them to be wrong. it is expedient to be able to claim that you haven't seen the calls for you to support your baseless accusations. considering the number of times you reference me, your ignore folder certainly isn't to enable you to ignore someone.

"And as an aside, is it just me or do these guys remind anyone else of high-school policy debate types?"while i'm sure that this little attempt at an ad hominem helps make you feel superior, i have to wonder why you would think that one using a more formal methodology (i'd assume) would be less preferable than the rambling and unsupported crap that you sling?

Hack-n-Slash wrote:

"I see I gave you too much credit"nothing but an ad hom attempt.

"is it possible that one can be, in general, law abiding but still have pirated?"not in my opinion. i do not equate copyright and traffic laws.

"yep, unless one pedantically claims that in order to be law abiding, one must have always abided by every law"unless, of course, the subject being discussed involved a particular segment of law. in that case it could reasonably be inferred that law abiding would imply particularly abiding to that segment of law.

"So... you do understand... sort of. You're mouthing the words, but not actually firing the synapses required to make the connection"more attempted ad hom.

"That would make it tautological..."yep. fgoodwin's point was a tautology. intentionally so, it seems.

"...and therefore "pedantic", rather like you just got done noting"nope. you seem confused by the concept.

this is an easy fix. america always take the easy way. why pay for somthing you can get for free. i would still pirate today if there was websites that allow it. not just music but everything. but are gov. will use the fire from the bridge to light its path. and i will keep my sword that much closer.

this is an easy fix. america always take the easy way. why pay for somthing you can get for free. i would still pirate today if there was websites that allow it. not just music but everything. but are gov. will use the fire from the bridge to light its path. and i will keep my sword that much closer.

When Merwin gives up his position, I hope that you will be considered.

The problem with your weasel logik is that besides homosexuals themselves, many others see no harm in homosexuality. Which is not true of piracy.

Let me see if I have this right: you're saying that it is not true that many others see no harm in piracy (as you define it)? Are you even reading this thread at all?Hi ruddy! Welcome to the internet. You might want to get started by acquainting yourself with lemonparty.

Everybody raise their hands who don't pirate themselves but see no harm whatsoever in it.

"Speeding is a pervasive behavior with about three-quarters of drivers in the survey reporting they drove over the speed limit on all types of roads within the past month."

From a quick Google; the site apparently references a NHTSA survey from '02.

I agree many people have sped at some point in time. But all you need to do is look out your window to see that most people DON'T speed at any given time. It's self-evident -- you don't need Google or anything else to confirm what you can see with your own eyes.

"Speeding is a pervasive behavior with about three-quarters of drivers in the survey reporting they drove over the speed limit on all types of roads within the past month."

From a quick Google; the site apparently references a NHTSA survey from '02.

I agree many people have sped at some point in time. But all you need to do is look out your window to see that most people DON'T speed at any given time. It's self-evident -- you don't need Google or anything else to confirm what you can see with your own eyes.

Yes, I can certainly agree that most people are not actively comitting copyright infringement at any given moment in time. In fact, 1/3 of 'people' are *sleeping* at any given moment in time.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with the sentiment behind the original claim.

"Well, that's a damning argument. Why didn't *I* think of that one before?"was that meant to support your position or rebut mine in some way? if you some how believe that my opinion that not abiding by the laws that are relevant to the discussion disqualifies one from being law abiding, why not support your position? considering that my opinion seems to coincide with the usage of the term law abiding, in both the context of fgoodwin and snork's posts, i can't see the problem with relying on such an opinion. since there is obviously room for reasonable disagreement, it should be equally obvious that your question was inappropriately cast as rhetorical. perhaps you can find a smaller tidbit to rip out of context, in order to make you untenable posts seem reasonable, next time. did i mention that the context of the discussion involved copyright law? yep. were both fgoodwin and snork's references to law abiding concerning abiding copyright law? yep. in the post that you replied to, did i reiterate this context? yep. did you once again ignore this context? yep. did you neglect to give any reason that the opinion i proffered was faulty in any way? yep. have you failed to support that your traffic law "analogy" was relevant in any way or that fgoodwin's assertion was a non sequitur? yep.

The problem with your weasel logik is that besides homosexuals themselves, many others see no harm in homosexuality. Which is not true of piracy.

Let me see if I have this right: you're saying that it is not true that many others see no harm in piracy (as you define it)? Are you even reading this thread at all?Hi ruddy! Welcome to the internet. You might want to get started by acquainting yourself with lemonparty.

Everybody raise their hands who don't pirate themselves but see no harm whatsoever in it.

What were you saying about 10-year-olds?

I was saying that, like hpsgrad, you seem unable to support your assertions. In this case, your implication that there are many who see no harm whatsoever in piracy, that do not practice it themselves. Unlike the many in our society who see no harm whatsoever in homosexuality, though they do not practice it themselves.

"Well, that's a damning argument. Why didn't *I* think of that one before?"was that meant to support your position or rebut mine in some way? if you some how believe that my opinion that not abiding by the laws that are relevant to the discussion disqualifies one from being law abiding, why not support your position? considering that my opinion seems to coincide with the usage of the term law abiding, in both the context of fgoodwin and snork's posts, i can't see the problem with relying on such an opinion. since there is obviously room for reasonable disagreement, it should be equally obvious that your question was inappropriately cast as rhetorical. perhaps you can find a smaller tidbit to rip out of context, in order to make you untenable posts seem reasonable, next time. did i mention that the context of the discussion involved copyright law? yep. were both fgoodwin and snork's references to law abiding concerning abiding copyright law? yep. in the post that you replied to, did i reiterate this context? yep. did you once again ignore this context? yep. did you neglect to give any reason that the opinion i proffered was faulty in any way? yep. have you failed to support that your traffic law "analogy" was relevant in any way or that fgoodwin's assertion was a non sequitur? yep.

Did you make yet another dozen-line post of intellectual-sounding pseudo-argument simply because you like to hear yourself talk? yep.

"Did you make yet another dozen-line post of intellectual-sounding pseudo-argument simply because you like to hear yourself talk?"nope. i supported my position and pointed out the lack of such support in your post. just as in your last post, there was nothing relevant to either position and instead there is just an attempt at an ad hominem attack.

The problem with your weasel logik is that besides homosexuals themselves, many others see no harm in homosexuality. Which is not true of piracy.

Let me see if I have this right: you're saying that it is not true that many others see no harm in piracy (as you define it)? Are you even reading this thread at all?Hi ruddy! Welcome to the internet. You might want to get started by acquainting yourself with lemonparty.

Everybody raise their hands who don't pirate themselves but see no harm whatsoever in it.

What were you saying about 10-year-olds?

I was saying that, like hpsgrad, you seem unable to support your assertions. In this case, your implication that there are many who see no harm whatsoever in piracy, that do not practice it themselves. Unlike the many in our society who see no harm whatsoever in homosexuality, though they do not practice it themselves.

I don't need to support my assertions regarding what you said, you said it. And I called bullshit on it. Most people see non-profiting internet piracy as the mostly inconsequential issue that it is, whether they practice it or not. I posit that many more people are against homosexuality and the so-called "gay agenda" in Hollywood than are even aware it can be illegal to download a movie or song. Maybe you should get out of your mom's basement once in a while. I now realize my suggestion that you visit the lemonparty was not constructive to this end, and for that I deeply apologize. My bad.

I don't need to support my assertions regarding what you said, you said it. And I called bullshit on it.

Why can't you support your contention it's bullshit then? We all know plenty of people who aren't homosexuals that have no problem with homosexuality. The preponderance of that sentiment in our society is at least one reason why laws against homosexuality have been becoming more tolerant in recent decades. We all know plenty of pirates as well. However, I don't know anyone who has "no problem" with piracy, who is not a pirate themselves, and that's why I asked for a show of hands. Seems to me one of the reason laws against piracy, if anything, are getting less tolerant, is because piracy has no support or sympathy from the general public (who are not themselves pirates). I'm aware of people like Lawrence Lessig, for example, and plenty of others, who advocate copyright reform, but I don't see any of them advocating piracy (who are not themselves pirates).

Quote:

Most people see non-profiting internet piracy as the mostly inconsequential issue that it is, whether they practice it or not.

If that were anything but puffery and baloney, then why did 4 separate federal juries of regular law-abiding citizens—who were not in any way copyright experts and not in any way affiliated with the music industry—all unanimously throw the proverbial book at pirates like Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum?

Quote:

Maybe you should get out of your mom's basement once in a while.

Seems to me you're the one living in la-la-land here, oblivious to the progressive capitalist democracy you swim in.

I don't need to support my assertions regarding what you said, you said it. And I called bullshit on it.

Why can't you support your contention it's bullshit then? We all know plenty of people who aren't homosexuals that have no problem with homosexuality. The preponderance of that sentiment in our society is at least one reason why laws against homosexuality have been becoming more tolerant in recent decades. We all know plenty of pirates as well. However, I don't know anyone who has "no problem" with piracy, who is not a pirate themselves, and that's why I asked for a show of hands. Seems to me one of the reason laws against piracy, if anything, are getting less tolerant, is because piracy has no support or sympathy from the general public (who are not themselves pirates). I'm aware of people like Lawrence Lessig, for example, and plenty of others, who advocate copyright reform, but I don't see any of them advocating piracy (who are not themselves pirates).

Fine, I'll waste my time explaining this to you, so you can go and say "no I meant blah blah and what about blah blah" for the umpteenth time. The vast majority of the general public minus the pirates themselves do not in any way whatsoever give a shit or even a turd about not-for-profit internet piracy, which would be required for the so--called "less tolerance" of the general public. They just don't care, and if you bring it up, most people think of it in terms like "I sure hope my child doesn't get caught by these jack-booted internet thugs" and think "what stupid and unnecessary laws". And if you really "don't know anyone who has 'no problem' with piracy" then you need to get the fuck out of your mother's basement. I seriously know a lot of people IRL, so INB4 you try to reverse yet another argument, and I do not know anybody with anything but sympathy for not-for-profit internet piracy, except those with absolutely no opinion whatsoever.

ruddy wrote:

Quote:

Most people see non-profiting internet piracy as the mostly inconsequential issue that it is, whether they practice it or not.

If that were anything but puffery and baloney, then why did 4 separate federal juries of regular law-abiding citizens—who were not in any way copyright experts and not in any way affiliated with the music industry—all unanimously throw the proverbial book at pirates like Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum?

These cases are on-going, are they not? At least until they run out of corrupt judges or payola, so never.

ruddy wrote:

Quote:

Maybe you should get out of your mom's basement once in a while.

Seems to me you're the one living in la-la-land here, oblivious to the progressive capitalist democracy you swim in.

It would seem like that to you, there in your mom's basement. Here's a clue: outside the window there? That's not la-la land, that's reality. Taste it.

And if you really "don't know anyone who has 'no problem' with piracy" then you need to get the fuck out of your mother's basement.

I know plenty of people who have no problem with piracy. The problem for you, and which you continue to dodge, is that they are all pirates themselves.

Quote:

I seriously know a lot of people IRL,

I wish you joy in that.

Quote:

so INB4 you try to reverse yet another argument, and I do not know anybody with anything but sympathy for not-for-profit internet piracy, except those with absolutely no opinion whatsoever.

Sounds like you need to get out more then, meet some people who work in the creative industries, or meet some parents concerned about teaching their kids right from wrong, and concerned they too will have opportunities to develop their talents. You know, just regular folks who wouldn't know 4chanese from ancient Greek.

Quote:

ruddy wrote:

Quote:

Most people see non-profiting internet piracy as the mostly inconsequential issue that it is, whether they practice it or not.

If that were anything but puffery and baloney, then why did 4 separate federal juries of regular law-abiding citizens—who were not in any way copyright experts and not in any way affiliated with the music industry—all unanimously throw the proverbial book at pirates like Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum?

These cases are on-going, are they not?

WTF does that have to do with the fact they already decided the way they did? We are talking about the perspectives of regular law-abiding citizens—the kind who sit on juries.

Quote:

At least until they run out of corrupt judges or payola, so never.

Got any evidence Judges Michael Davis or Nancy Gertner were corrupt? Didn't think so. Got any evidence that any juror sitting on those 4 trials was bought? Didn't think so.

And if you really "don't know anyone who has 'no problem' with piracy" then you need to get the fuck out of your mother's basement.

I know plenty of people who have no problem with piracy. The problem for you, and which you continue to dodge, is that they are all pirates themselves.

I didn't dodge anything, particularly any "problem" for me that you just manufactured. You took a snippet out of context to make it look like I am, or you never read the paragraph in the first place. Here it is, bold where you cut:

kublakhanonomous wrote:

The vast majority of the general public minus the pirates themselves do not in any way whatsoever give a shit or even a turd about not-for-profit internet piracy, which would be required for the so--called "less tolerance" of the general public. They just don't care, and if you bring it up, most people think of it in terms like "I sure hope my child doesn't get caught by these jack-booted internet thugs" and think "what stupid and unnecessary laws". And if you really "don't know anyone who has 'no problem' with piracy" then you need to get the fuck out of your mother's basement. I seriously know a lot of people IRL, so INB4 you try to reverse yet another argument, and I do not know anybody with anything but sympathy for not-for-profit internet piracy, except those with absolutely no opinion whatsoever.

ruddy wrote:

Quote:

I seriously know a lot of people IRL,

I wish you joy in that.

You should try it, as I keep trying to tell you.

ruddy wrote:

Quote:

so INB4 you try to reverse yet another argument, and I do not know anybody with anything but sympathy for not-for-profit internet piracy, except those with absolutely no opinion whatsoever.

Sounds like you need to get out more then, meet some people who work in the creative industries, or meet some parents concerned about teaching their kids right from wrong, and concerned they too will have opportunities to develop their talents. You know, just regular folks who wouldn't know 4chanese from ancient Greek.

no u! Srsly. This is you trying to reverse the argument, exactly as I said you would, and you even quoted me. Maybe if I had said NORPS instead of IRL you would have understood. It wouldn't matter, though would it? Going on and on repeating the same diatribe over and over in the hope that it will magically become true is right out of your FOX playbook aka the shill's employee manual.

ruddy wrote:

Quote:

ruddy wrote:

Quote:

Most people see non-profiting internet piracy as the mostly inconsequential issue that it is, whether they practice it or not.

If that were anything but puffery and baloney, then why did 4 separate federal juries of regular law-abiding citizens—who were not in any way copyright experts and not in any way affiliated with the music industry—all unanimously throw the proverbial book at pirates like Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum?

These cases are on-going, are they not?

WTF does that have to do with the fact they already decided the way they did? We are talking about the perspectives of regular law-abiding citizens—the kind who sit on juries.

It has to do with carefully chosen jurors and their perspectives being dictated to them by very high-priced lawyers paid by big content, the outcome of which gets successfully appealed over and over and is an ongoing clusterfuck of gluttony and greed that is a perfect example of the true motivations of big content, and is disproportionate to anything approaching logic or reality. It is hardly representative of the disposition of most people in America.

Be sure to memorize this for the corporations who have violated the intent of the copyright process as originally defined at the beginning of our Republic, working in conjunction with the power hungry federal government will never stop pushing for more regulation, laws and restrictions. After all what is the job of a politician if not to come up with more legislation? If they are going to enact new laws why not get paid, I mean receive campaign contributions for doing so, right?

Incrementalism – This is the magic by which all improbably and unimaginable acts can be made possible by enacting them in small amounts over time. A man cannot pick up a 1 ton boulder and move it up a hill but he can, over time, break it up into small stones and carry the stones, in batches, up any hill.

Incrementalism is how the government moves us from a free and liberty minded Republic to a police like state where corporations are recognized as persons (by the supreme court) but unlike real people are not accountable for their actions thanks to legal instruments like LLC. These unique person entities are also able and even required by law to work towards never ending profit without repercussion for the benefit of their stockholders.

So if you want to do something and get away without by saying “I was only doing my job” then join an LLC today and anything becomes possible including the unethical and immoral. And if you think that’s just conspiracy theory then why is it that it’s been 3 years since the banks, gambling with money thanks to the over-turn of the long standing Glass-Stiegel Act that prevented this kind of thing from happening, brought our country to financial crisis and no one has gone to jail for it and the tax payer has been made liable thru the bailouts our government gave the banks?